Filewrapper®

Protecting Creativity by Artificial Intelligence: Part 2

January 30, 2019

Post By Kirk M. Hartung

U.S. Patent laws usually have two objectives: 1) To disclose inventions for the benefit of mankind; and 2) To incentivize inventors and investors. Thus,
patent protection serves a social benefit and a personal benefit.

Currently, thousands of patent applications are being filed in the U.S. Patent Office for inventions directed to AI, and despite the patent eligibility
issues, patents are being issued on AI inventions by humans. However, these patents are distinct from the possibility of inventions by computers using
AI. Whether such inventions can or should be protected by patents, raises many issues for these thinking machines.

An early AI pioneer, Stephen Thaler, developed the “Creativity Machine" in 1994. This machine is credited with an invention which is covered by US patent
5,852,815 issued in 1998, the first known patent on an AI-generated invention. The ‘815 patent lists Thaler as the sole inventor, though his Creativity
Machine is credited with generating the invention. Another computer scientist, John Koza, designed the Invention Machine based on genetic programming
and biological evolution. This machine made an invention covered by US patent 6,847,851 issued in 2005, listing 3 people as inventors.

Thus, inventions generated autonomously by computers using artificial intelligence are here. But how do the patent laws apply to such inventions?

The starting point is the first patent statute, 35 U.S.C. § 100, which defines “inventor” as the “individual” who invents or discovers the subject matter
of the invention. While a human wrote the software code for the computer, that programmer did not invent the solution to the problem. Rather, the solution
was generated by the AI. Thus, the computer may be the inventor, and not the programmer.

Section:

100 provides that "Whoever" invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” Does “whoever” imply a person, and not a machine?

102 defines the conditions for patentability, particularly novelty, and states, “A person shall be entitled to a patent unless…" Thus, §102 seems
to preclude a patent for invention created by AI. However, §103 describes the non-obviousness requirement for patentability, and provides, “patentability
shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made." Thus, § 103 seems to be inclusive of AI generated inventions, and inconsistent
with §102.

103 raises another dilemma for AI inventions, by requiring that the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art must be nonobvious “to
a person having ordinary skill in the art…." Should or can an invention by a computer be tested or compared to a person skilled in the art?
If AI provides a novel and useful solution to a problem, which no human had solved, is that solution per se non-obvious?

In view of the anticipated growth applications for AI, perhaps it is time for Congress to revisit the patent statutes.

The patentability of AI generated inventions has not been addressed by either Congress or the courts. China’s New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development
Plan refers to AI Intellectual Property rights, so China appears to be ahead of the United States on such rights.

February 14, 2019

February 12, 2019

Purpose

The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.

Disclaimer

McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole.